Dual Level Writing

[oggbashan]

I think that there is another important distinction between High Art (I would not suggest Michael Nyman as a representative of that -- try Beethoven) and Popular Culture. High Art touches a part of the mind which is used all too seldom, but which is that which uniquely makes us human -- our capacity for hypothesis and irony. It is a cognitive capacity that is evoked by both high Art and Science. Popular Culture can make us feel good, although apparently it can also make animals feel good.

We could argue for days about what is High Art.

My rule of thumb definition is that it is Art that requires the viewer/listener to have some previous knowledge to appreciate the Art.

But when I try to find examples I have to qualify my statement. For example:

Classical Ballet should need the theatre goer to understand and appreciate the conventions, the positions, the gestures from mime, the set pieces etc.

But if you take a child of seven or eight to see The Royal Ballet's production of The Nutcracker? That child can appreciate the spectacle and the story telling. Whether the child understands the conventions? That doesn't matter. It is entertainment.

Opera is often claimed to be High Art. It is certainly expensive Art because the cost of producing an Opera is massive. But since live transmissions to movie theatres have become common, and inexpensive, a wider audience is growing who perhaps didn't appreciate the mechanics of an Opera, but can enjoy it - and learn to understand it better.

Offenbach's comic operas, particularly if produced in English, are accessible and enjoyable without pre-knowledge. But Wagner? There needs to be some understanding of what Opera is about, and how Wagner changed the conventions.

I think that High Art in the 21st Century is more accessible than it ever has been because of the internet and Wikipedia. But it still needs some involvement from the audience.

I could go on - Popular Culture has become more complex and multi-faceted since the 1950s. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody have all asked more of their followers than the crooners and balladeers of the 1950s. Of course, some popular music is more simplistic than others. But there are depths with many performers that are way beyond Doo-Wop.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Um... citation needed. I don't know if High art is quantifiable at all and I don't think irony belongs in the definition. Irony is generally a cheap way to make a point.

I'd better define irony, then, as I am using it in this context. Irony generally refers to double meanings. It is the essential ingredient in good poetry -- an ambiguity is created which is essentially a paradox. If you tell a computer that a particular statement means two very different things at the same time, the computer will reject your assertion as being illogical. If you tell an animal the same thing, the animal will not respond. But a human is capable of synthesizing a solution to the paradox, and it can be an extremely joyful experience.

In music, the mind recognizes ideas through repetition. In pop music, that's usually as far as it goes. You hear something repeated over and over, and it's "catchy," it lodges itself in your mind and you get pleasure from it. In Classical music, an idea is repeated, it acquires a certain "meaning" in terms of an emotional association, and then it is varied in a surprising way. It acquires a new, unexpected meaning. This deviation from what is expected is another form of irony (and the essential ingredient in humor, by the way.) I could carry on endlessly about this, but I won't.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

...

oops...

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I'd better define irony, then, as I am using it in this context. Irony generally refers to double meanings. It is the essential ingredient in good poetry -- an ambiguity is created which is essentially a paradox. If you tell a computer that a particular statement means two very different things at the same time, the computer will reject your assertion as being illogical. If you tell an animal the same thing, the animal will not respond. But a human is capable of synthesizing a solution to the paradox, and it can be an extremely joyful experience.

In music, the mind recognizes ideas through repetition. In pop music, that's usually as far as it goes. You hear something repeated over and over, and it's "catchy," it lodges itself in your mind and you get pleasure from it. In Classical music, an idea is repeated, it acquires a certain "meaning" in terms of an emotional association, and then it is varied in a surprising way. It acquires a new, unexpected meaning. This deviation from what is expected is another form of irony (and the essential ingredient in humor, by the way.) I could carry on endlessly about this, but I won't.

The word I use is CONFOUNDING....a surprise result that may or may not be the opposite of the literal meaning.

 

[SecondCircle]

it's kind of hard to consider much of erotica as high anything.

But why is that?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I think his point was that IF you accept the idea that "High Art" is not supposed to appeal to our "baser instincts," [a questionable proposition] and Erotica is, whether directly or indirectly, then they can't be in the same group.

Of course, it depends on this rejection of what is supposedly base from art. An old and silly notion.

But why is that?

 

[HandsInTheDark]

But why is that?

Because most erotica sucks. Sturgeon's "Law": 90% of everything is crud. Except on Lit, merely 90% would be a good day.

And let's be serious. We're not writing about the human condition here. We're not answering questions about who we are, unless "we" exist only between our legs. We're not establishing world peace, feeding the hungry, advancing the sciences or revealing what God means to us. Most stories here aren't even about love. We're mostly encouraging people to masturbate in their basements.

I don't happen to think it's a terrible goal, but I don't suffer from the delusion that I'm crusading for deep meaning, more acceptance of sex (sex is already well accepted), or throwing light on either the spiritual or biological underpinnings of human sexuality. There's some erotica that manages those things, but it's either proven it has by surviving the test of time and becoming a classic, or it's making money for someone at Amazon.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Because most erotica sucks. Sturgeon's "Law": 90% of everything is crud. Except on Lit, merely 90% would be a good day.

And let's be serious. We're not writing about the human condition here. We're not answering questions about who we are, unless "we" exist only between our legs. We're not establishing world peace, feeding the hungry, advancing the sciences or revealing what God means to us. Most stories here aren't even about love. We're mostly encouraging people to masturbate in their basements.

I don't happen to think it's a terrible goal, but I don't suffer from the delusion that I'm crusading for deep meaning, more acceptance of sex (sex is already well accepted), or throwing light on either the spiritual or biological underpinnings of human sexuality. There's some erotica that manages those things, but it's either proven it has by surviving the test of time and becoming a classic, or it's making money for someone at Amazon.

Generally, I agree with you. I am of the opinion that over the past century or so, 90% would be an optimistic figure. I think that "modernism" in music and the plastic arts is an unmitigated disaster, and the pop culture has been gravitating relentlessly toward the admiration of ugliness, violence and evil.

But... Let me play devil's advocate with respect to erotica. A person's sense of what is erotic provides a gateway of sorts to that person's inner psychological map. People are excited by things that have nothing to do with sensual stimulation, which is why kinks and fetishes are interesting to me from the standpoint of psychology.

Some works of erotica are interesting as literature for this reason. Some of Anaïs Nin's writings, for example, or the novel "Brazil" by John Updike. I will shamelessly plug my own experiment in this direction, my "Venice Series" here on Lit, an erotic thriller where the villain is sociopath with a particular interest in BDSM. Admittedly, my series contains its share of out-and-out stroke material as well. But I think that one may try to take erotica in a direction that goes beyond just the hardness and wetness.

And those writers who are indisputably Artists with a capital A, such as Shakespeare, Chaucer, Rabelais, Heine -- they all brought some naughtiness into their works, generally for humorous purposes. Like it or not, sex is funny.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Generally, I agree with you. ..

Preaching to the choir here. Most of my stuff delves into the psychology behind dominance, both in consenting and nonconsenting situations. I try to tell a story at the same time. I even think I have valid insights. But I'm still not going to claim I'm up to anything lofty. At bottom I just like making certain kinds of female readers go panty-diving.

 

[oggbashan]

One thing that depresses me is looking at the thread "looking for a story?".

Almost all of the requests are for incest or cuckold.

While I have written a couple of incest stories as an experiment, what the posters in that forum seem to want is very basic plots with no subtlety.

There are stories on Literotica that are worth reading as stories, but the requests are for simple sex scenes.

 

[sr71plt]

One thing that depresses me is looking at the thread "looking for a story?".

Almost all of the requests are for incest or cuckold.

Not only that, but most are looking for degrading sex as well--and inane plotlines.

I think about that every time someone posts to the forum that most readers are looking for literary fiction here.

 

[rjordan]

Not only that, but most are looking for degrading sex as well--and inane plotlines.

I think about that every time someone posts to the forum that most readers are looking for literary fiction here.

How do you know that those who post on Looking for a Story are representative of the thousands who do not?

It could be that they are looking for those stories because they are not finding them on Lit.

You might want to check with all the publishers you deal with. If there is such a demand for degrading sex stories with inane plotlines, that should be reflected in large numbers of requests to sex publishers in general.

rj

 

[sr71plt]

How do you know that those who post on Looking for a Story are representative of the thousands who do not?

It could be that they are looking for those stories because they are not finding them on Lit.

You might want to check with all the publishers you deal with. If there is such a demand for degrading sex stories with inane plotlines, that should be reflected in large numbers of requests to sex publishers in general.

rj

I don't know any more than those who claim most readers here are looking for substance know. I just know that the preponderance of "seekers" for stories are seeking smut because that's what the preponderance of those posting to that forum say they are seeking. And this is a firmer statistic than those claiming most readers here are seeking substance can provide--and have provided.

The difference is that I don't spend my time trying to pretend I'm here to write for the New Yorker (although I think that my work probably is more literary than most of those with pretensions for their work). I don't care whether or not it is. There's a vast majority of reader and writer interests here and I think that folks who want to influence what others read/write by either posting what they like or what they hate or giving pretentious pronouncements of what readers want should mind their own business and leave others the hell alone to pursue their own interests in reading/writing.

 

[SecondCircle]

One thing that depresses me is looking at the thread "looking for a story?".

Almost all of the requests are for incest or cuckold.

While I have written a couple of incest stories as an experiment, what the posters in that forum seem to want is very basic plots with no subtlety.

There are stories on Literotica that are worth reading as stories, but the requests are for simple sex scenes.

Aye. I don't think anyone is arguing that "literary" erotica is what all the readers want on Lit.

That's kind of the point though. No one can say "all readers want X". I mentioned eatlier that there's an audience for everything here at Lit, and it's true.

That's the thing actually. When someone says "Only literary erotica is what stands above", well they are wrong. Plenty of people want just arousing sex scenes. Which is fine. But it draws my attention when someone says the opposite, that no one wants deeper meaning or duel levels to writing. Because it works the same way. I, for one, am not a one handed reader here. I do read for arousal or titillation, but I can find something provocative or stimulating without feeling the need to lube up my hand and blast spiderwebs across the screen. I do enjoy stories that are just sex scenes.

In my time as a reader, I've learned this about my tastes in reading at Lit. I read like anyone else might. Short saucy tales. Sex scenes. No more. Eventually, that becomes bland. Like porn. Then I'd find stories that actually had a decent plot idea, but so many were just written poorly-- and call it what you will, bad writing is bad writing and can ruin a story for me. So I'd search for stuff more technically sound. Written decently and with plausible plots. For a great while, this is where I'd stay. And not for the reason of one handed pleasure. Just for the enjoyment of reading something hot. Many of the stories were good, but on more than one I kept thinking, "damn, I would have done X or written Y or tried Z. That would have been awesome." Which sort of led to my experimentation with erotica as a writer.

Occasionally, I would stumble across a great story. (Great defined as IMO). Characters that bled red blood. Characters I could actually see and hear, ones I laughed with or worried about. There were plotlines that were just cool as hell. There were even tear jerkers. Some of them made me look out my window fearful of knocking noises. I still remember reading one (don't even remember the author) about a guy at a strip club trying to forget a breakup or something like that. While the concept was common, I'll never forget the way the author wrote about the dancer in the story. I can't even explain it, the words just flowed like warm chocolate; thick, rich, and sweet. I remember thinking, "Damn, this is on a porn site?"

Then there were the ones I didn't see coming. I've read several that actually mean more than just the sex that happened in the story. Whether it was heavily romantic or thought provoking or whatever, these were stories that I actually will always remember. I guess you could say, my tastes in reading (and eventually in writing) evolved to wanting more than ONLY arousal. I craved those stories that pushed the boundaries because they did more than what the majority seemed to be doing-- just writing sex scenes.

Honestly? I liked the so called "high brow" or deeper meaning stories with complex plots because, well, it was like reading anything else. Just with the incredibly hot explicit sex included. There's plenty of sex in mainstream or "non erotica" but it's rarely the sole focus, and to much of the world seems a taboo or blushworthy element. In movies and TV, the sex just seems dumped in to draw eyes or ratings. In books, the sex rarely had any central role to play, unless you count harlequin romances (bleh). It's there in abundance, just used less explicitly.

Lit became a place I could freely read and write the deeper stuff. It's here. I enjoy reading it (if you can find it). Occasionally I like writing it. I never PLAN to try and add meaning or anything. I don't set out thinking "oh this is going to be high brow right here" as I hold my pinky out. But I don't shy away from any theme because of any "it's just porn dood" sentiments. I just like it. It appeals to my tastes. So do simple sex scenes. I like all forms of stories.

Which is why I usually stop and listen when folks say that no one is into this kind of writing here. I read it. I write it. Many have said they enjoyed it. In no way is it a majority. But in no way do I think it's a taste that should be dismissed.

It interests me as a topic because I developed tastes as a reader and writer for more "complicated erotica", and many seem convinced it's a waste of time "because it's people having sex". They tell me "you can't have a gangbang and have an underlying meaning of self acceptance in the same story. That's just silly." When I think what they really mean is THEY can't have a story with those elements. For me, I ask, "Why the fuck not?"

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I think his point was that IF you accept the idea that "High Art" is not supposed to appeal to our "baser instincts," [a questionable proposition] and Erotica is, whether directly or indirectly, then they can't be in the same group.

Of course, it depends on this rejection of what is supposedly base from art. An old and silly notion.

Actually, I think that it is fair to say that "High Art" appeals to what might be called the "poetic" faculty of the mind, not the "baser instincts," and that what we normally call Erotica is not intended to be Art.

That does not mean, however, that Art cannot contain erotic elements. It means simply that there is a point being made that reaches us on the poetic, above-the-belt level. Just as classical music draws upon folk music for its melodic vocabulary, literary art refers to everyday life in many ways, and sex is part of everyday life.

 

[Handley_Page]

We could argue for days about what is High Art.

My rule of thumb definition is that it is Art that requires the viewer/listener to have some previous knowledge to appreciate the Art.

But when I try to find examples I have to qualify my statement. For example:

Classical Ballet should need the theatre goer to understand and appreciate the conventions, the positions, the gestures from mime, the set pieces etc.

But if you take a child of seven or eight to see The Royal Ballet's production of The Nutcracker? That child can appreciate the spectacle and the story telling. Whether the child understands the conventions? That doesn't matter. It is entertainment.

Opera is often claimed to be High Art. It is certainly expensive Art because the cost of producing an Opera is massive. But since live transmissions to movie theatres have become common, and inexpensive, a wider audience is growing who perhaps didn't appreciate the mechanics of an Opera, but can enjoy it - and learn to understand it better.

Offenbach's comic operas, particularly if produced in English, are accessible and enjoyable without pre-knowledge. But Wagner? There needs to be some understanding of what Opera is about, and how Wagner changed the conventions.

I think that High Art in the 21st Century is more accessible than it ever has been because of the internet and Wikipedia. But it still needs some involvement from the audience.

I could go on - Popular Culture has become more complex and multi-faceted since the 1950s. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody have all asked more of their followers than the crooners and balladeers of the 1950s. Of course, some popular music is more simplistic than others. But there are depths with many performers that are way beyond Doo-Wop.

It's at this point I have to cry for help, and I doubt I'm alone.
Ballet is not something I have ever managed to twig.
I managed to record the Nutcracker and it has left me cold (I'll have another go at it soon).
Perhaps it is because I do not understand the 'language'.

I have come to the conclusion that Opera is best selected on the main aria, if only because the story is usually somewhat less than 'believable'.
'The Magic Flute', despite having the most magnificent aria (Hell Rages) has a story which I find impenetrable. Listen HERE.
Come to think of it, most Opera is impenetrable; or having a silly story to hang beautiful music from: 'Daughter of the Regiment' is dead curious, but has the best tenor aria I have ever heard; it's incredible [Listen here]

As for Wagner. I doubt anyone can listen to it who has heard Bugs Bunny ('What's opera, doc') can ever listen to it without a smile.

I'd better define irony, then, as I am using it in this context. Irony generally refers to double meanings.

I always thought that irony was to say one thing and mean another; usually for amusing purposes.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Come to think of it, most Opera is impenetrable; or having a silly story to hang beautiful music from

I think that you are mistaken. Opera is difficult for me; I don't enjoy it as absolute music, I have to see it performed and follow the story. But Beethoven's "Fidelio" I find absolutely awe-inspiring, gripping, it moves me to tears. Verdi took some of the greatest tragedies of Shakespeare and Schiller and did them justice as operas.

I always thought that irony was to say one thing and mean another; usually for amusing purposes.

The irony is that "irony" has more than one meaning. A very useful book for aspiring authors and poets is William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity.

 

[oggbashan]

It's at this point I have to cry for help, and I doubt I'm alone.
Ballet is not something I have ever managed to twig.
I managed to record the Nutcracker and it has left me cold (I'll have another go at it soon).
Perhaps it is because I do not understand the 'language'.

I have come to the conclusion that Opera is best selected on the main aria, if only because the story is usually somewhat less than 'believable'.
'The Magic Flute', despite having the most magnificent aria (Hell Rages) has a story which I find impenetrable. Listen HERE.
Come to think of it, most Opera is impenetrable; or having a silly story to hang beautiful music from: 'Daughter of the Regiment' is dead curious, but has the best tenor aria I have ever heard; it's incredible [Listen here]

Ballet? Try to find the Ladybird Book on Ballet. It tells you all you really need to know in simple language.

Opera Plots?

The Magic Flute? The story is complex, convoluted and absolute nonsense with a Masonic flavour. The music is great. The plot? Who cares?

Several operas have plots that would disgrace the worst writer on Literotica.

The plot of Turandot was never finished.

Borodin's Prince Igor was unfinished too, and has been rewritten many times. It still doesn't make sense.

 

[Handley_Page]

Ballet? Try to find the Ladybird Book on Ballet. It tells you all you really need to know in simple language.

Opera Plots?

The Magic Flute? The story is complex, convoluted and absolute nonsense with a Masonic flavour. The music is great. The plot? Who cares?

Several operas have plots that would disgrace the worst writer on Literotica.

The plot of Turandot was never finished.

Borodin's Prince Igor was unfinished too, and has been rewritten many times. It still doesn't make sense.

Would you believe that I have found a copy ?

 

[oggbashan]

Would you believe that I have found a copy ?

Congratulations!

If you read it through, you will know more than many people in a ballet audience.

 

[NaokoSmith]

HP, I am always surprised at how much I love ballet. It just appeals to something not rational, the emotional side, in me. A bit like rugby I think it's rather like football - either you are tuned into that world/art-form/sport or it's not really your thing. Have you been to see ballet live? You might surprise yourself? as I did.

Maybe there is more than one way to have dual levels in a story.

A story could have a message. That would be an intended additional line to the story, which the author wanted to get across. I do a lot of this kind of writing, and I struggle with it at the moment. The message I want to convey often weighs down the story too heavily.

A story could have a subconscious theme which is written in without the author realising. This is usually a much more successful way of writing.

Who says art has to be solemn? I don't. But I do say that it's different than mere entertainment.

Much 'mere entertainment' does carry a subconscious theme in it. Star Wars, say. The original films weren't intended to be art; they are popular culture. Written into them, though, is not only the 1970s/80s anxiety about democracy and individualism. Individualism is so much a part of the film's unintentional ethos that key pieces of action are undertaken by a maverick individual: the destroying of the Death Star can only be done by one person who is maverick enough to turn off their guidance system and drop a bomb in exactly the right spot. Another key theme in the films is father/son relationships. At a time when machismo was being radically questionned in North American society, this is a film where the ultimate macho father: Darth Vader (=Vater), is demonstrably problematic - he has to be saved by his softer, more intuitive son.

As jomar and Bucky go on to say:

The world is a Rorschach test .... I'm sure some writers write stories with embedded meanings and lofty symbolism and deeper stuff. But most authors probably just write...and readers and critics and English majors come up with the "meaning." To be honest, I've heard and slung so much bullshit in a creative writing class and an auteur directors class that it's hard to buy that writers are typically purposeful in dual levels, but then, I'm not 100% in that world and I'm on the bottom rung so probably have little idea...I do try to read between the lines, but...

And sometimes, I think that "extra meaning" sneaks its way into a story because it was in the back of the author's mind as they wrote it.

When we just sit and write a story, much of the personal and political concerns of our world which we are puzzling at in the backs of our minds, can get written in without our necessarily realising it.

 

[rjordan]

I don't know any more than those who claim most readers here are looking for substance know. I just know that the preponderance of "seekers" for stories are seeking smut because that's what the preponderance of those posting to that forum say they are seeking. And this is a firmer statistic than those claiming most readers here are seeking substance can provide--and have provided.

The difference is that I don't spend my time trying to pretend I'm here to write for the New Yorker (although I think that my work probably is more literary than most of those with pretensions for their work). I don't care whether or not it is. There's a vast majority of reader and writer interests here and I think that folks who want to influence what others read/write by either posting what they like or what they hate or giving pretentious pronouncements of what readers want should mind their own business and leave others the hell alone to pursue their own interests in reading/writing.

Your first post came off as either-or, smut or literary. I should have let it pass because I've heard you say many times that they come here for a wide variety of reasons, and the story library serves a wide variety of interests.

I tend to see most of these posts from the reader's viewpoint, and I sometimes get the idea that you see mostly the writer's pov. They aren't the same. They only come together by chance. Kind of like buyers and sellers. No sale unless they both agree on the value.

rj

 

[AlwaysHungry]

As for Wagner. I doubt anyone can listen to it who has heard Bugs Bunny ('What's opera, doc') can ever listen to it without a smile.

Try this.

 

[Handley_Page]

Try this.

Bloody Magic; hysterical.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Try this.

Reminds me of Victor Borge's Mozart Opera